On Friday, 7 February 2020 at 23:39:34 UTC, jmh530 wrote:
> On Friday, 7 February 2020 at 23:14:28 UTC, Andre Pany wrote:
>> [snip]
>>
>> All what you say is completely true. Still, the license makes it a very hard job to advertise the D Programming Language at the place I work. It is already hard, and I do not want also get into discussions with IP department about license issues.
>>
>> [snip]
>
> You keep emphasizing the problem with LGPL. That is also a problem with any use of Gtk. If you used Gtk with any other language, then you would likely have the exact same issue. PyGTK is LGPL, for instance. Your issue isn't with D or GtkD, except to the extent that other GUI libraries aren't as developed or don't have licenses you are happy with either.

GTK was already evaluated by IP department and I could use it as long I do dynamic linking and do not copy any code snippets from gtk code base.

Kind regards
Andre

On Friday, 7 February 2020 at 23:28:00 UTC, Andre Pany wrote:

> Although you are right, the label lgpl makes my job harder. From a risk management perspective I understand if a team architect decides for any other language just to be 100% on the safe side.
>
> This is the point I want to stress.

I hope you can find your way through this maze, Andre. Corporate adoption will go a long way toward giving D and GtkD a higher profile. All the code offered on the GtkDcoding blog is and always will be public domain*, so at least that won't be a hurdle.

*Not the text of the blog posts, though. That's copyrighted material in case anyone wants to know.

On Friday, 7 February 2020 at 16:00:07 UTC, bachmeier wrote:
> On Friday, 7 February 2020 at 15:05:13 UTC, Russel Winder wrote:
>> True companies have convinced themselves that only licences that allow stealing of others' intellectual work are acceptable to business, but then that is the point, they can steal the intellectual work with impugnity.
>
> A rant of my own:
>
> The push against the GPL is mostly by those who want free software to mean "free labor". GPL software can be dual licensed. Companies can pay for an alternative licensing arrangement if it's that valuable to them. Instead they want "free" software that allows them to avoid payment while imposing restrictions on how others use the software.

How do you pay for an alternative licensing arrangement when there are a gazillion contributors some of whom are untraceable and when in practical terms any one of those saying no might make it in practical terms impossible? Software can be dual licensed, but it often isn't, particularly with community developed software.

Most software is internal software I think.  But a company needs to make decisions strategically in the face of uncertainty.  Suppose you are considering a library for internal use and not planning to redistribute.  But business is uncertain.  Maybe it could be you want to redistribute your software to a future partner.  Now if you use a viral license library that doesn't give you an option to pay for it then you are shutting off that option.